US appeals court rules geofence warrants are unconstitutional

[Gunny]

Ummm...

US appeals court rules geofence warrants are unconstitutional | TechCrunch (https://techcrunch.com/2024/08/13/us-appeals-court-rules-geofence-warrants-are-unconstitutional/)

[SassyLady]

First time I ever heard of this was in the movie "2000 Mules" and then during J6 investigations.

[revelarts]

Ummm...

US appeals court rules geofence warrants are unconstitutional | TechCrunch (https://techcrunch.com/2024/08/13/us-appeals-court-rules-geofence-warrants-are-unconstitutional/)

Small Victory but a victory.

Again goes to show that the principals of the OLD constitution still apply to any NEW technology.
New tech is always simply doing the SAME ol Crap in a new way or more & faster.
Spying on/collecting people's & company's property, papers/records without probable cause.
In cases like this it's sometimes called 'fishing expeditions'.


Got to toss this complaint in.
The sad thing is we have to fight daily just to try & preserve rights that the govt is supposed to be protecting
Superman tag line comes to mind.
"...his on going battle for truth, justice & the American way."

[fj1200]

Again goes to show that the principals of the OLD constitution still apply to any NEW technology.

Not sure anyone is making the argument that it doesn't.

[Gunny]

Small Victory but a victory.

Again goes to show that the principals of the OLD constitution still apply to any NEW technology.
New tech is always simply doing the SAME ol Crap in a new way or more & faster.
Spying on/collecting people's & company's property, papers/records without probable cause.
In cases like this it's sometimes called 'fishing expeditions'.


Got to toss this complaint in.
The sad thing is we have to fight daily just to try & preserve rights that the govt is supposed to be protecting
Superman tag line comes to mind.
"...his on going battle for truth, justice & the American way."

This will no doubt end up in the Supreme Court. One would think anyway. THIS is what caught my eye:


The Fifth Circuit’s opinion comes to a different conclusion than a similar case heard last month in the Fourth Circuit, which covers North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. That ruling found that accessing Google’s stores of location data does not count as a search and upheld the legality of geofence warrants (https://reason.com/volokh/2024/07/10/accessing-google-location-history-records-is-not-a-search-at-least-when-limited-fourth-circuit-rules/) across those states.


Conflicting rulings between the 2 circuit courts. The argument is going to come down to catching bad guys or not. I'm not confident in the Supreme Court not going for that. IMO, regardless intent, this is a violation of the Fourth. Blanket searching everyone's data looking for the needle in the haystack.

I support law and order. What I don't support is giving government this much blanket authority. A warrant requires a suspect. This is the opposite. The warrant blindly seeks most likely suspects.

[fj1200]

This will no doubt end up in the Supreme Court. One would think anyway. THIS is what caught my eye:



Conflicting rulings between the 2 circuit courts. The argument is going to come down to catching bad guys or not. I'm not confident in the Supreme Court not going for that. IMO, regardless intent, this is a violation of the Fourth. Blanket searching everyone's data looking for the needle in the haystack.

I support law and order. What I don't support is giving government this much blanket authority. A warrant requires a suspect. This is the opposite. The warrant blindly seeks most likely suspects.

Undoubtedly. But this court sides with the 5th circuit while a packed court :eek: sides with the 4th IMO. :eek: :eek:

[Black Diamond]

Not sure anyone is making the argument that it doesn't.

You mean it's not a "living document"?

[fj1200]

You mean it's not a "living document"?

Shouldn't be but we do have a "living" society unless your iPhone operating system is up to iOS-twelve-score-and-four.3a.12. ;)

[Gunny]

You mean it's not a "living document"?Open the can of worms :)

The law has to keep up with the times. But because there are two extremes controlling the issues, like gun control, there's no room for a common sense, moderate voice in the middle. Weren't we addressing obsolete laws in another thread a couple of days ago?

Everything anymore comes down to the two psychos at either end of train trying to go full speed ahead in opposite directions. Perfect example is red 5th circuit rules one way, blue 4th the other.

I would not have much of a problem with a sincere use of this tool to locate criminals but for the two, aforementioned extremes. With current administration labeling parents and Catholics extremists/terrorists? Or "MAGA Republicans" extremists and terrorists? Yet Hamas supporters are mere protesters exercising their rights.

Sorry. I don't trust that government.

[Black Diamond]

Open the can of worms :)

The law has to keep up with the times. But because there are two extremes controlling the issues, like gun control, there's no room for a common sense, moderate voice in the middle. Weren't we addressing obsolete laws in another thread a couple of days ago?

Everything anymore comes down to the two psychos at either end of train trying to go full speed ahead in opposite directions. Perfect example is red 5th circuit rules one way, blue 4th the other.

I would not have much of a problem with a sincere use of this tool to locate criminals but for the two, aforementioned extremes. With current administration labeling parents and Catholics extremists/terrorists? Or "MAGA Republicans" extremists and terrorists? Yet Hamas supporters are mere protesters exercising their rights.

Sorry. I don't trust that government.

Yeah i remember leftist judges calling it a living document. Which they think gives them permission to turn it on its head.

[Gunny]

Yeah i remember leftist judges calling it a living document. Which they think gives them permission to turn it on its head.That is definitely the stance of the left. Translation: anything that gets in our way of what we want to do needs to change or be gone. They are treating the Supreme Court the same way.

What leftoids don't realize in those concrete skulls of theirs is that laws exist to protect the left. They want to tear down the very things that protect them in the name of progress. Neither going backward, nor forward over a cliff impresses me much.

If it weren't for them screwing it up for everybody, since they know what everybody needs, I'd say let them destroy themselves.

On the other hand, for anyone wo has actually read the original text of the US Constitution without Amendments, it definitely could use an update. Those who claim to be strict Constitutionalists with no exceptions might want to take another look and/or be careful what they wish for. How many blacks did it take to equal one vote? Comes to mind.

[fj1200]

Those who claim to be strict Constitutionalists...

Hmmm... :panicsmiley:

[revelarts]

Open the can of worms :)

The law has to keep up with the times.
the times have not changed the nature of men.
All new laws can still fit within the Freedom promoting bounds of the Constitution.
Not sure why that's a hard concept for people to grasp.

I-pads don't use the term "four-score". ooook. Doesn't "4 score" mean "80"? Do i-pads use the number 60?
There's really nothing NEW to deal with except new expressions of the same OLD Corruption & Crimes.

Also Why doesnt the Flip side of the "Keeping up with the times" thing get asked?
Maybe we need need rules to CONTROL the GOVT since there are all of these NEW things to deal with.



I would not have much of a problem with a sincere use of this tool to locate criminals but for the two, aforementioned extremes.
I suspect that MOST people wouldn't have much of a problem with the use of it, however the founders understood something that, again, seems VERY hard from some folks to really grasp. Once you give any official permission to use certain tools for one "good/reasonable" purpose then they ,and those that follow, will ALWAYS have that tool on hand to use for ANYTHING else they think... or they can convince others... is important.
This is why the HARD LINE is drawn.
There are already constitutional tools in place to get criminals.
And the door should stay closed to unconstitutional means.
Yes that mean SOME "get away with it". But the alternative is a pragmatically continually creeping police state if we make our primary goal security over freedom.
A line has to be drawn somewhere.
the constitution is that line in the sand.
"If we can keep it"




With current administration labeling parents and Catholics extremists/terrorists? Or "MAGA Republicans" extremists and terrorists? Yet Hamas supporters are mere protesters exercising their rights.

Sorry. I don't trust that government.
this type of thinking was exactly the mindset of the founders, except they knew it could come from ANYwhere, not just those they disagreed with.
So they built the wall for everyone, so no one would have the opportunity.
Put a hole in the wall anywhere and thats where anyone can walk through and enlarge it.



...
On the other hand, for anyone wo has actually read the original text of the US Constitution without Amendments, it definitely could use an update. Those who claim to be strict Constitutionalists with no exceptions might want to take another look and/or be careful what they wish for. How many blacks did it take to equal one vote? Comes to mind.
The Amendments were added to FIX the exact problems, & more, that you're talking about.
the constitution provides for the creation of amendments.
Do you have any that you want to add? For the UPDATES you think the law/constitution needs?
If anyone wants to edit the "strictness" of the constitution let them do it the constitutional way.
Is that to hard?
No one's said it's perfect.
Just that it's still FAR better than any of the changes most people have proposed.


I'll add this,
folks here talk about dying for freedoms here & abroad. About not being cowardly and the like, but for some reason it's considered "extreme" to seriously advocate... with words... for the freedoms outlined in the constitution?
What's up with that? I don't get it. Why is that so far out?
But going to the extreme of fighting & dying for the "freedom" is an honorable duty?
What freedom are we talking about exactly? Not constitutional freedom? Some constitutional freedoms/rights?

I'm not afraid of the freedoms outlined in the constitution.
I think "law & order" can be maintained within the umbrella of the constitution. Do you? (I think you've said elsewhere you don't)
I do not think the govt needs ANY more authority to do SQUAT. And they've overstepped their bounds way too far already.
If that's too extreme for some oh well, then i'm a crazy extremist.

But for those who don't have much of a problem with the govt going beyond the constitution for the sake of "law & order", be careful what you wish for.

[fj1200]

the times have not changed the nature of men.
All new laws can still fit within the Freedom promoting bounds of the Constitution.
Not sure why that's a hard concept for people to grasp.

The times have changed the activities of men. You might ponder grasping that but I don't disagree that new laws can, and should, fit within the bounds of the Constitution.

BTW, score=20.

[revelarts]

The times have changed the activities of men. You might ponder grasping that but I don't disagree that new laws can, and should, fit within the bounds of the Constitution.
.

I dont need to ponder it if you'd simply tell me.
What activities of men are new?

eating, sleeping, talking, organizing, working, educating, farming, transportation, recreation reproductive activities, chid rearing, fighting, lying, stealing, slander, spying, kidnapping, murder, ...???
what NEW activity.
I'm just about pondered out here.

What NEW powers do you think the Federal govt needs, or what NEW tech isn't generally covered by the constitutional umbrella?

Cell Phones are communication devises,
Did the constitution and laws under it deal with communications before Cell phones? public and private.

Computers are info, document storage & creation devices,
Did the constitution and laws under it deal with info, document storage & creation before computers?

Self driving Cars are transportation.
No transportation before them? No way to determine liability or safety before they showed up?

Cameras & Film are new?

Is food new? altering food to the degree we can now is. Is checking if food is poisonous new?

The only things that are I can think of that are new that maybe (not really) falls outside of known legal bounds are things like cloning & genetic modification of Human Beings/babies.
But even there it seems it's should be a 'no brainer' to classify all of that under the cover of known individual constitutional & Human Rights.
But with people still questioning the human rights of embryos, it's not hard to imagine some courts NOT recognizing the human right NOT to be experimentally created or experimentally created lacking rights.
But maybe new constitutional MAD Scientist laws ARE in order.

So please, help me out, WHAT SPECIFICALLY are you thinking of that needs NEW constitution level boundaries.

[fj1200]

I dont need to ponder it if you'd simply tell me.
What activities of men are new?

...

So please, help me out, WHAT SPECIFICALLY are you thinking of that needs NEW constitution level boundaries.

I didn't say anything about NEW constitution level boundaries. Man has consciously chosen to engage in communication, etc. activities that are outside of what is outside of CURRENT constitution level boundaries. This is nothing I haven't said before so you are opting to continue to ignore an inconvenient truth.

I can agree that we need better laws but just stating something is unconstitutional is not a winning strategy.

[revelarts]

I didn't say anything about NEW constitution level boundaries. Man has consciously chosen to engage in communication, etc. activities that are outside of what is outside of CURRENT constitution level boundaries. This is nothing I haven't said before so you are opting to continue to ignore an inconvenient truth.

I can agree that we need better laws but just stating something is unconstitutional is not a winning strategy.
Pretending Something is not covered by constitutional bounds when it is,
is not a winning strategy either
Pretending that being a lil over... then a lil more... then a lil more... then a lil over here... outide of constitutional limits is not a winning strategy.
It's the boiling frog stratagy.

Please just tell me where I've proposed that something is unconstitutional when it was.
Breaking into private property IS unconstituional.

I'm not looking for your hypotheticals.
You seem very bothered by & youre accusing me of mis-labeling or over-labeling items as unconstitutional.
Where exactly have I done that please FJ.

What real event have I mis-labeled or over-labeled as unconstitutional.

Or are you more concerned that EVEN IF IT IS unconstitutional, that it's just not a good idea strategically to SAY SO. because most people and the govt/courts DONT care.

[fj1200]

I'm not sure why I try anymore.


Pretending Something is not covered by constitutional bounds when it is,
is not a winning strategy either
Pretending that being a lil over... then a lil more... then a lil more... then a lil over here... outide of constitutional limits is not a winning strategy.
It's the boiling frog stratagy.

Fact not in evidence. Your opinion is noted. But this is my point; you claim something that is not true... or at the very least I disagree with.


Please just tell me where I've proposed that something is unconstitutional when it was.
Breaking into private property IS unconstituional.

Wrong thread. I've explained in the other thread the problem with your opinion.


I'm not looking for your hypotheticals.
You seem very bothered by & youre accusing me of mis-labeling or over-labeling items as unconstitutional.
Where exactly have I done that please FJ.

Everywhere lately. The problem is that you just keep proclaiming it unconstitutional when the devil will be in the actual details. Has government gone too far in surveillance and issues are possibly unconstitutional? I will not argue that point but you don't seem to want to discuss those actual details.


What real event have I mis-labeled or over-labeled as unconstitutional.

Or are you more concerned that EVEN IF IT IS unconstitutional, that it's just not a good idea strategically to SAY SO. because most people and the govt/courts DONT care.

I've explained ad infinitum over my years here that there is a difference between unconstitutional and a bad idea. We've got countless laws that are a bad idea but yet fully constitutional.

[Kathianne]

I'm not sure why I try anymore.



Fact not in evidence. Your opinion is noted. But this is my point; you claim something that is not true... or at the very least I disagree with.



Wrong thread. I've explained in the other thread the problem with your opinion.



Everywhere lately. The problem is that you just keep proclaiming it unconstitutional when the devil will be in the actual details. Has government gone too far in surveillance and issues are possibly unconstitutional? I will not argue that point but you don't seem to want to discuss those actual details.



I've explained ad infinitum over my years here that there is a difference between unconstitutional and a bad idea. We've got countless laws that are a bad idea but yet fully constitutional.

You're not alone with the numbers on laws or those that think every damn issue is of Constitutional importance:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/justice-gorsuch-has-brief-warning-about-bidens-scotus-proposals-too-many-laws-can-pose-a-danger

[revelarts]

I'm not sure why I try anymore.

try replying directly to what i've said rather rather than BS like
"I've explained ad infinitum over my years"
"you claim 'something' that is not true"
WHAT? be specific. that's what i asked you to provide.
you still haven't




Wrong thread. I've explained in the other thread the problem with your opinion.
You given your opinion.
pragmatism

Technically, factually the SS broke into private property. it was an unconstitutional act.
Sorry saying that bothers you.
it's a fact
We agree that it's not necessary to make an official federal case of it.
But it does make sense to POINT IT OUT.
Why, so the feds understand where the line is.... EVERY TIME it's crossed.

Do you have a problem with that? or do you prefer to Straw Man my views?



Everywhere lately.
:rolleyes::laugh:

so it should be easy to give an example or 2.
If not it's just your BS perception and perennially being upset with 1/2 of whatever I say.




I've explained ad infinitum over my years here that there is a difference between unconstitutional and a bad idea. We've got countless laws that are a bad idea but yet fully constitutional.
Again.:rolleyes:
so it should be EASY to link to 1 or 2 threads.
Seems like you have feelings you've done this. But real world... not really.

[fj1200]

try replying directly to what i've said...

The last time I did? :crickets: The problem being that we start with a specific thing in a specific thread and then you slowly expand it into everything that's stuck in your craw currently and then you lurch back into asking for things "directly." Don't complain about where we are when you're the one driving the bus.

[revelarts]

FJ maybe we can make this productive.
can you tell me if these are true statements.
and if they are false in your view please create a REVISED version to make them correct in your mind.

•"The constitution LIMITS what the Federal govt can do.
The Secret Service has no Constitutional authority to break into private property to take a piss."

•The Constitution is the Federal govts umbrella for all legal actions they are ALLOWED to take.
ANY govt actions NOT under that umbrella is Unconstitutional. And not legally defensible as constitutional.


And after that, can you give me just 3 or 4 items that you believe fall under this statement.
•The Federal Govt & it's agents actions are NOT subject to the Constitution when they:
(I'll give you a couple to start.)
•Eat lunch.
•Go to a public bathroom.
•Look at the moon at night.

just looking for 2 or 3.
I think you said -SPEEDING while on duty for no reason- is a CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE action. (Or maybe Extra-constitutional)

So I guess if they hit someone and the person dies... it should not be considered "depriving of life" as a representative of the govt?
I'm asking. If not, why not.
"everybody knows" is not an answer because it has been taken to court before.


But As I've said, there's NO NEED for every illegal or unconstitutional thing a FED does to be taken to the supreme court.
Most are in fact dealt with by lower courts (as unconstitutional acts BTW.)
But even if an issue never makes it to court, that does not mean that it's not illegal THEREFORE unconstitutional for a fed. Or that it should not be publicly noted as such.

Not every speeder gets a ticket, that does not mean they were not speeding. It does not mean they were driving legally.

[fj1200]

maybe

Maybe you could leave things in the correct threads or create specific threads that might be of interest.

[revelarts]

Maybe you could leave things in the correct threads or create specific threads that might be of interest.

please copy and paste it to whatever you think is the correct thread Fj.
I'd just like to get an honest response.

[fj1200]

please copy and paste it to whatever you think is the correct thread Fj.
I'd just like to get an honest response.

The honest response is that there are seventy-12 correct threads and I'm not interested in trying to discuss your laundry list each and every time. Case in point? B&Es by the SS. We have to many threads around here in the first place so use them.

[Gunny]

the times have not changed the nature of men.
All new laws can still fit within the Freedom promoting bounds of the Constitution.
Not sure why that's a hard concept for people to grasp.

I-pads don't use the term "four-score". ooook. Doesn't "4 score" mean "80"? Do i-pads use the number 60?
There's really nothing NEW to deal with except new expressions of the same OLD Corruption & Crimes.

Also Why doesnt the Flip side of the "Keeping up with the times" thing get asked?
Maybe we need need rules to CONTROL the GOVT since there are all of these NEW things to deal with.


I suspect that MOST people wouldn't have much of a problem with the use of it, however the founders understood something that, again, seems VERY hard from some folks to really grasp. Once you give any official permission to use certain tools for one "good/reasonable" purpose then they ,and those that follow, will ALWAYS have that tool on hand to use for ANYTHING else they think... or they can convince others... is important.
This is why the HARD LINE is drawn.
There are already constitutional tools in place to get criminals.
And the door should stay closed to unconstitutional means.
Yes that mean SOME "get away with it". But the alternative is a pragmatically continually creeping police state if we make our primary goal security over freedom.
A line has to be drawn somewhere.
the constitution is that line in the sand.
"If we can keep it"



this type of thinking was exactly the mindset of the founders, except they knew it could come from ANYwhere, not just those they disagreed with.
So they built the wall for everyone, so no one would have the opportunity.
Put a hole in the wall anywhere and thats where anyone can walk through and enlarge it.



The Amendments were added to FIX the exact problems, & more, that you're talking about.
the constitution provides for the creation of amendments.
Do you have any that you want to add? For the UPDATES you think the law/constitution needs?
If anyone wants to edit the "strictness" of the constitution let them do it the constitutional way.
Is that to hard?
No one's said it's perfect.
Just that it's still FAR better than any of the changes most people have proposed.


I'll add this,
folks here talk about dying for freedoms here & abroad. About not being cowardly and the like, but for some reason it's considered "extreme" to seriously advocate... with words... for the freedoms outlined in the constitution?
What's up with that? I don't get it. Why is that so far out?
But going to the extreme of fighting & dying for the "freedom" is an honorable duty?
What freedom are we talking about exactly? Not constitutional freedom? Some constitutional freedoms/rights?

I'm not afraid of the freedoms outlined in the constitution.
I think "law & order" can be maintained within the umbrella of the constitution. Do you? (I think you've said elsewhere you don't)
I do not think the govt needs ANY more authority to do SQUAT. And they've overstepped their bounds way too far already.
If that's too extreme for some oh well, then i'm a crazy extremist.

But for those who don't have much of a problem with the govt going beyond the constitution for the sake of "law & order", be careful what you wish for.

Amendments you say? Do not Amendments add to or detract from but otherwise change the original Constitution? Why yes they do, as a matter of fact. I have not promoted anything more nor less. Matter of fact, I believe I specifically have stated I don't trust government to have this power. That's why there are supposed to be checks and balances.

I've always been a Constitutionalist. Just not the variety that defines it as a dead rock that cannot be changed for the betterment of the People. I also don't claim to be a Constitutionalist that's against change except for amendments that are okay with me :rolleyes:

You got yourself all worked up on your soapbox for nothing.

[Black Diamond]

Amendments you say? Do not Amendments add to or detract from but otherwise change the original Constitution? Why yes they do, as a matter of fact. I have not promoted anything more nor less. Matter of fact, I believe I specifically have stated I don't trust government to have this power. That's why there are supposed to be checks and balances.

I've always been a Constitutionalist. Just not the variety that defines it as a dead rock that cannot be changed for the betterment of the People. I also don't claim to be a Constitutionalist that's against change except for amendments that are okay with me :rolleyes:

You got yourself all worked up on your soapbox for nothing.

Amendments are difficult to do. Should be the only way to change it.

[Gunny]

Amendments are difficult to do. Should be the only way to change it.That's the check. However, shall we look at some of the Amendments?

16th allows the government to collect income tax

The 17th has to be FJ's favorite -- allows for Senators to be elected by the people rather than the State. Even though, the Senate represents the states, not the people (House)

18th: Prohibition

21st: Repeal Prohibition

23rd:
The 23rd Amendment (https://constitutionus.com/constitution/the-23rd-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution-explained/) ensures that Washington, D.C. had electors in the Electoral College (https://constitutionus.com/congress/what-is-wrong-with-the-electoral-college/), but only as many as the state with the lowest number. This would ensure that voters there had better representation in future elections. The amendment was ratified on March 29, 1961.
Arbitrary.

This is the source I used: List of the 27 Amendments - Constitution of the United States (constitutionus.com) (https://constitutionus.com/constitution/amendments/constitutional-amendments/)

I cherry picked specific Amendments that caught my eye. Point being, I don't take issue with the Amendment process. Again, my issue is with the morons entrusted with using it.

[fj1200]

The 17th has to be FJ's favorite --

:mad: